'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
Peace Oben,
I don't really know that 'lisaan' is necessarily meaning 'language' in its complete sense of written/spoken system of communication including all the other features required which would be complete grammar/spelling/script etc.
I agree with you and I didn't say otherwise. All human languages started out as spoken languages and then people later selected a script for writing it and formalized its grammar and structures. No language that I know of started out by people making a grammar and then deciding about the script and then speaking it. So speech is the primary aspect of human language.
I do think that 'lisaan' relates more to the 'speech' of someone. Like one of the meanings of 'quran' is recitation - something spoken. And in this sense faultless speech is definitely a concept that 4144 expands upon making 'lisaan' quite clearly mean the speech of a person rather than a systematised language and all its features which we understand today.
Notice that in 4144, "a3jami" is contrasted to "3arabi". The God says that had it been made an "a3jami" reading then people would say "if only its signs were detailed "a3jami" and "3arabi"".
Now according to your interpretation "a3jami" would mean the opposite of "faultless", i.e. full of faults. Why would people ask for a reading full of faults and faultless at the same time? Moreover, why would The God make a reading "full of faults" as per the first part of the passage?
I think that the best interpretation is that there are two types of speech, the "3arabi" speech is intelligible to the audience, while the "a3jami" is unintelligible. Hence, they would have wanted a translation in "3arabi" to accompany the "a3jami" text.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace,
Truth
but here is a quick noteI'm not saying the arabic is a perfect language, in fact it seems you have contradicted your self,
you said "Arabic" means faultelss, while you proved later that any language has faults, and I agree with you that any langugaes has faults
I have not said that the language system "Arabic" is perfect or faultless. I have stated that the usage of a language can be faultless and that is what the adjective "AAarabiyan" is referring to. It's not stating a name for the language, but rather describing the quality of the language used.
Also I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.
But within the limitations of the language, using its rules, and the choice of words available etc. one can construct a faultless message.
In computer programming there are languages - none of them are perfect - but you can create a faultless program in them by choosing the correct keywords and proper syntax. You can even have a variety of programs that do exactly the same thing. One way might be ugly and roundabout and use one hundred lines - the other may be concise, direct and have elegance or beauty.
I hope you understand.
-
Peace Ayman,
Peace Oben,
Now according to your interpretation "a3jami" would mean the opposite of "faultless", i.e. full of faults. Why would people ask for a reading full of faults and faultless at the same time? Moreover, why would The God make a reading "full of faults" as per the first part of the passage?
I don't believe the two terms are opposites or antonyms. From 4144 we can see that the two are not opposite because the excuse to disbelieve in the 'quranan aajamiyan' is to say that it is ' aajamiyan wa aarabiyan' - this cannot be "non-Arabic and Arabic".
In fact it cannot be any pair of opposites. The assumption that they are opposites is like commiting the logical fallacy of the false dilemma - that it must be one or the other.
Like you point out correctly, the God would not make any of His messages 'full of faults' he would similarly not make them 'unintelligible' - so the translations of 'foreign' for AAjami and 'faultless' for AArabiyan is more correct. The two terms are not opposites and this is key.
However your suggestion "intelligible" is definitely compatible with the general group of meanings as 'faultless/expressed with clarity/eloquent' within the root for 'AAarabi'.
Regards.
-
Peace,
Truth
but here is a quick noteI'm not saying the arabic is a perfect language, in fact it seems you have contradicted your self,
you said "Arabic" means faultelss, while you proved later that any language has faults, and I agree with you that any langugaes has faults
I have not said that the language system "Arabic" is perfect or faultless. I have stated that the usage of a language can be faultless and that is what the adjective "AAarabiyan" is referring to. It's not stating a name for the language, but rather describing the quality of the language used.
Also I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.
But within the limitations of the language, using its rules, and the choice of words available etc. one can construct a faultless message.
In computer programming there are languages - none of them are perfect - but you can create a faultless program in them by choosing the correct keywords and proper syntax. You can even have a variety of programs that do exactly the same thing. One way might be ugly and roundabout and use one hundred lines - the other may be concise, direct and have elegance or beauty.
I hope you understand.
Yeh I undersatand
you use Basic to write a program in Basic
or Visual Basic to wtite a program in Visual Basic
or C++ to create a program C++
you can't create a program in C++ and you claim it was written using Pascal
also the Quran used many words to express that it is perfect, the puzzle and confusion that you come alonge with many others and claim "Arabic" means Perfect, while all of don't speak arabic
how come? and what we call the arabic language then?
you see you argument is baseless and I hope you understand
-
Hi AhmedBahgat,
One question for u If Allah had created Quran in an other language, other than Arabic, would it have been faulty, impure and unclear?
-
TruthAlso I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.
Truth, you're a smart guy so I cannot how you can be so sure of yourself here when you didn't even know that Arabic did have a verb for 'to be'. Why don't you research it some more instead of knee-jerk post-modernist reaction?
If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?
-
If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?
Are u saying, Quran would have been imperfect,unclear, faulty, impure if Allah had created it in another language other than arabic?
-
So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?
-
So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?
Potentially yes.
I don't think you're getting my point though.
My point is, at present, there's one book which is the divinely inspired text. That is Al-quraan. The language of al-quraan is perfect and it coveys the perfect syntax, morphology and diction to convey the essence of man. It's the perfect programming language, to use a computing metaphor. Arabic by itself is not perfect but Quranic Arabic is.
-
So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?
Potentially yes.
I don't think you're getting my point though.
My point is, at present, there's one book which is the divinely inspired text. That is Al-quraan. The language of al-quraan is perfect and it coveys the perfect syntax, morphology and diction to convey the essence of man. It's the perfect programming language, to use a computing metaphor. Arabic by itself is not perfect but Quranic Arabic is.
I agree with u partly.
When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)? -
I agree with u partly.
When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?I think first we need to remind ourselves as to what al-quraan talks about. Al-quraan deals with the hudan/guidance of humankind. That is how humankind should live on earth and what happens to them after this life. This is important subject to humankind and for this purpose, Al-quraan is perfect which means it conveys its message through mankinds primordial language and describes concepts which mirrors this primordiality.
-
I agree with u partly.
When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?I think first we need to remind ourselves as to what al-quraan talks about. Al-quraan deals with the hudan/guidance of humankind. That is how humankind should live on earth and what happens to them after this life. This is important subject to humankind and for this purpose, Al-quraan is perfect which means it conveys its message through mankinds primordial language and describes concepts which mirrors this primordiality.
Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)? -
Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?Why are your options exclusive? The fact that's its perfectly used makes it perfectly understandable. It's not 'or' but 'and'.
-
Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?Why are your options exclusive? The fact that's its perfectly used makes it perfectly understandable. It's not 'or' but 'and'.
Say, Quran was written in arabic and the best of arabic to describe the message in a clear and faultless manner, and was given to people who do not know arabic(say, the messenger lived in china), would the message be clear to the people(of china) who recieved them ?
-
Say, Quran was written in arabic and the best of arabic to describe the message in a clear and faultless manner, and was given to people who do not know arabic(say, the messenger lived in china), would the message be clear to the people(of china) who recieved them ?
No. One would need to know Arabic in order to recognise the faultlessness.
May I ask what you're trying to prove here?
-
And again, the best use of the language(the syntax, ,morphology, diction etc) would make no sense to the people who recieve if they did not understand the complex use of a language. So, the language used and the way it is used, would be to convey the 'clear message' in a way the people who recieve, understand it clearly.
-
My points are
God is capable of conveying His clear message, in a clear manner in any language.
God has used the arabic language in the best way possible to convey His clear message in Quran, coz it was given to the people of Arabia and had to be understood by them(including the syntax, morphology, diction)At the end of the day, the purpose is to convey the message of the book and not create a perfectly written arabic book which people do not understand.
So, the 'arabic' in Quran is of significance only becoz it came to the people of the arabia and arabic was a language they understood.
It doesnt make the language 'arabic' holy, faultless or pure.God would have conveyed the same(the clear) message very clearly, in a faultless manner with the best use of english, if He were to give it to English speaking people.
So, Quran is impure, clear and faultless becoz of ''Allah and His message'' and not ''arabic'' -
TruthAlso I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.
Truth, you're a smart guy so I cannot how you can be so sure of yourself here when you didn't even know that Arabic did have a verb for 'to be'. Why don't you research it some more instead of knee-jerk post-modernist reaction?
If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?
Let me express it more precisely so you do not misunderstand what was asked. I asked for the infinitive of the verb "to Be" as in the famous English phrase "To be or not to be".
How about the infinitive of the verb "to Have" in Arabic?
Regards.
-
God is capable of conveying His clear message, in a clear manner in any language.
Capable, yes.
God has used the arabic language in the best way possible to convey His clear message in Quran, coz it was given to the people of Arabia and had to be understood by them(including the syntax, morphology, diction)
Assumption. How do you know He didn't choose Arabic and then sent it to an Arab messenger? Evidence please.
So, the 'arabic' in Quran is of significance only becoz it came to the people of the arabia and arabic was a language they understood.
No, I wouldnt say 'only because'. Quranic Arabic also has elements such as nouns, verbs, pronouns etc. These elements could be used to ascertain what the perfect human language could be like.
It doesnt make the language 'arabic' holy, faultless or pure.
Lets leave the word 'holy' out of this. Im not referring to standard Arabic spoken in the world. Im speaking of Quranic Arabic. Thats what I believe to be faultless.
God would have conveyed the same(the clear) message very clearly, in a faultless manner with the best use of english, if He were to give it to English speaking people.
So, Quran is impure, clear and faultless becoz of ''Allah and His message'' and not ''arabic''Agreed. If the Quran came down in English, I would say Quranic English contains the best linguistic system we can ever come up with.